This blog addresses the fatal flaw at the core of capitalism as a system of human psycho-socio-political-economic collective self-reproduction, a flaw which ultimately renders it a self-DIS-organizing, self-destroying system -- as is becoming increasingly evident. It also details the successor system to capitalism, the new system that represents the higher, positive way forward for humanity: Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY, or EQUITISM.

The Social Relation of Production
Social Praxis that [Continually
Re-]Produces Affective and Objective Social
Alienation in the Capitalist Epoch -- A ‘Psychohistorical-Materialist’
Analysis.

Dear Readers,

This new series -- “Karl Seldon on Karl Marx” -- is for the purpose of my
presenting to you key excerpts from Karl Seldon’s discourses, among we
of F.E.D., on the topic of the work of
Karl Marx.This series continues -- in
this Part 2
-- with a clarification of Marx’s lifelong and mature ‘‘‘psychohistorical’’’
analysis of human “alienation” within the integument of “the capital relation”.

[Seldon:]“Contrary to the claims of some
anti-Marxians, Marx never “abandoned” his view of the prevalence and centrality
of the «problematique» of
human-social alienation, both subjective andobjective
-- that first surfaced in his early writings of the 1840s -- all the way from
those early writings to his most “mature” work on the immanent critique of the
ideology-vitiated “science” of capitalist classical political economy, in the
four [drafted] volumes of his «Das Kapital».”

“Instead, that theory of alienation became the very heart of
his critique of political economy:self-alienation is the very essence of “the capital-relation” [Marx].”

“The beating heart of “the capital-relation” is wage-labor.”

“Wage-labor is, precisely, self-selling -- self-alienation -- a comprehensive system of
“universal prostitution” [Marx, Grundrisse], which is not restrictedly or primarily sexual prostitution, but is the prostitution of the total human person,
the giving up of ‘individual sovereignty’ and of control of one’s own
potentially creative life-activity, of ownership of one’s creations, and of the
purpose and meaning of one’s very life, to an alien will, for the better part
of one’s daily life, and for the better part of one’s entire
lifetime, in exchange for mere survival -- for the wage wherewithal to live to
work another day for that alien will, with, perhaps, enough wherewithal left
over to feed, to clothe, and to educate one’s children, e.g., to take one’s
place after one’s life has been “used-up” and thrown away.”

“Marx’s solution regarding the root cause, the economic
basis -- or, rather, the social relation of production and social praxis basis
-- of human social alienation in general, and the individual self-alienation
that resides at its causal core in particular, is sprinkled and applied
throughout hismiddle and final “mature”
works -- e.g., «Zur Kritik...» [A Contribution to
the Critique of Political Economy], and Capital:A Critique of Political Economy.”

“The problem has been that Marx’s more subjectivist and
‘existentialoid’ mis-interpreters have not
known how to read Marx’s frequent exhibitions of this solution in those works.”

“And, the ‘Leninoid’ would-be misleaders about Marx’s
theories have sought to suppress all understanding of the role of Marx’s theory
of alienation in his critique of capitalism, hoping that their readers will not
notice their perpetuation of that alienation in their plans, and in their
actualizations, of their perpetuation of wage-labor, in enslavement to the state -- to state-capital -- and in enslavement
to their state-bureaucratic ruling class, in their proto-state-capitalist, Orwellian dictatorships.”

“Even pre-capitalist production
forsale -- i.e., productionofcommodities -- is productionforalienation, for the dis-owning of
one’s products in return for money, producing products for ‘exchange-use’ -- rather
than for ‘consumption use’ by their immediate producers -- and, while it marks
progress for the development of the social-reproductive self-force of the human
species, it also already engenders a social praxis which produces and
reproduces problematic pre-capitalist forms of social alienation.”

“But daily [re]production of your self for the purpose of
daily self [re-]sale -- for daily wagéd [and salaried] labor -- is production
and reproduction ofself mainly forself-alienation,
and is thus also the production and expanded reproduction of individual and social self-alienation itself; of
self-disowning; of self-estrangement.”

“And this incessant, ‘essence-ial’ social practice of
capitalism produces an alien social world, ‘a world of strangers’, a world
devoid of true human community, devoid of real human-social solidarity, and
devoid of non-monetary purpose and meaning, for most of its practitioners.”

“When we are too used to this world -- immersed in it, from
birth -- we may lose sensitivity, lose the ability to discern these tragedies,
unless or until certain healing and consciousness-inducing events engulf our
lives and our social self-identities.”

“This social praxis produces, and continually expandedly
reproduces, an alien world, a world of alienated objectifications, of
[self-]objectifications designed and owned, not by the human selves that, together, socially, produce
those [self-]objectifications; a world shaped per and owned by, not by the majority of human beings,
but, instead, designed and owned by the “logic” of capital, by capital
personified, by the ever-shrinking capitalist ruling class, an ever-tinier,
ever-more-deranged minority of “Dr. Strangeloves”, characterized by
ever-more-concentrated capital ownership, and pursuing an agenda which is
increasingly alien to, and contrary to, the interests, the needs, the
well-being of the majority, producing, class, opposed to the collective will of
that majority, and utterly and lethally subversive of the democracy that
capitalism championed in its ascendence phase.”

“The [socio-politico-]economic act of participating, per
force, in the wage-labor/capital social relation of production, and in its
social praxis, creates and daily recreates a social “base”, and a social “superstructure”,
permeated throughout its entire depth and breadth and height, from top to
bottom, by the historically-specific, capitalist brand ofsocial alienation.”

“The root of modern self-alienation is none other than
self-selling, and self-selling is, precisely, wage-labor [and salaried labor].”

Wage-labor is the labor-side, the worker-side, the MAJORITY-side, of “the
capital-relation” as predominant “social relation of production” [Marx].”

“Self-alienation, alienated [sold] life-time, alienated
[sold] labor-time, alienated labor IS WHAT
CAPITAL IS ALL ABOUT -- it is WHAT CAPITAL IS MADE OF.”

For more informationregarding
these Seldonianand Marxianinsights,
please see --

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

The «Aufheben»-‘‘‘Containment’’’ofCapital-EquitybyHigher «Species» of Equity.

Dear Readers,

The checking-and-balancing of capitalism’sdeadly downsides -- the
‘socio-political-economic’ ‘‘‘containment’’’ of the “externality” inequities of the “market failures”
of descendence-phase capitalism;
of its rising
‘hyper-inequality’, and of its
tendential degeneration
of democratic institutions into Orwellian, totalitarian, ‘humanocidal’dictatorship, due to the plutocratic prostitution of
those formerly democratic institutions, and due to the ‘humanocidal’desperation of the
descendence-phase capitalist
ruling class, facing accelerating and deepening rates of
‘techno-depreciation’ of their hyper-concentrated capital assets -- requires
the popular establishment of new, higher «species» of
social-political-economic equity
as constitutionally-backed basic human rights, and as universal, all-citizens
forms of “individual property”, owned personally by each and every
citizen.

The three higher «species» of ‘generalized equity’
identified by the Equitist Advocacy group are designed to «aufheben»-‘‘‘contain’’’ the fatalinequities of Capital-equityas the sole socially-recognized and established form
of equity in
the following ways --

1. ‘Citizen
Externality Equity’ is designed to ‘‘‘contain’’’/economically
“check-and-balance” Capital-equity‘‘‘from within’’’, via popularly-elected, mandated, and
recallable Boards of Public
Directorsvying,
inside each local operating unit of, e.g., a polluting enterprise, whether capitalist or
producers’-cooperative, with the Management Committee of that local operating unit, to
reduce the annual production of pollution and/or other externalities by that
enterprise, with recourse to popularly-elected, mandated, and recallable
Justices, forming ‘Tribunals for Citizen Externality Equity’, deciding in case
of deadlock in the negotiations between the publicly-elected Public Board and the
governing ‘‘‘Private Board’’’
of each such enterprise.

2.‘Citizen Birthright Equity’
is designed to ‘‘‘contain’’’/economically “check-and-balance” Capital-equity‘‘‘from without’’’, by limiting the degree of desperation, hence
of vulnerability to exploitation, of workers.It
limits the degree of exploitation of wage-workers that Capital-equity
can get away with, since, if exploitative abusiveness increases beyond a
definite degree, many workers will choose to live from their ‘Citizen Birthright Equity’ Trust Funds, rather than
submit to that degree of abuse, or worse.

3.‘Citizen Stewardship Equity’
is designed to ‘‘‘contain’’’/economically “check-and-balance” Capital-equityin direct competition therewith, by competitively
and ‘marketistically’ limiting the excesses of capitalist oligopolies, etc., by
surrounding Capital-equity
enterprises with market competition from ‘socialized producers’ cooperatives’,
giving workers an alternative to ‘‘‘wage-slavery’’’ or ‘salary-slavery’ to the
owners of Capital-equity,
by way of the constitutional right to form democratically-managed, competing,
at-risk ‘citizen stewardship collectives’, which, if their business plans
qualify in the eyes of a competing, at-risk ‘Social Bank citizen stewardship
cooperative’, are granted the means of production, etc., required to actualize
those business plans, in return for a social rent paid on those means of
production, etc., e.g., among its other purposes, to encourage economy in the
use of such means of production.

Constitutionally and actually instituting these three higher
«species» of [inclusive]
social equity to the, originallylone, Capital-equity
[exclusive
social equity] «species»,
would mean ‘‘‘correcting’’’ the capitalistsystem for the abuses inherent in the
increasingly economicallyunchecked power of the
ever-shrinking, ever-more-capital-concentrated and capital-wealthy capitalistruling classplutocracy, which wealth that
plutocracy uses
to prostitute
all three branches of political government, thus destroying the constitutional political
checks-and-balances that held sway somewhat during the ascendence-phase of the capitalist system.

A popular movement strong enough to constitutionally and
actually institute these three higher «species» of social equity would
thereby also tend to generate a popular, potentially non-violent,
rule-of-law transition to a new prevailing social relation of production:‘«gene»-ralized equity’ itself.

The constitutional establishment
of these three new, additional, incremental «species» of social equity --
supplementary to and extending the existingsocial equity
«species», of Capital-equity
-- is designed to ‘complete the «genos»’ of social equity, by actualizing these three other
«species» of ‘socio-political-economic equity/fairness/justice, beyond the Capital-equity first/«arché» «species» of
‘SocialEquity-in-«Gene»-ral’.

Saturday, May 11, 2019

Albert Einstein, whose work
anticipated, and often predicted, so many phenomena that were only observed or
confirmed long after his life time, spent the major part of his later years
working on a “Unitary Field Theory”. This was a theory that, extending Maxwell’s
field theory unification programme that led to the unification of magnetism and
electricity, was intended to reveal an undergirding unity of the fundamental
“force” manifestations of Nature, starting with a unification of
electromagnetism and gravity.

Standard accounts of Einstein’s
unitary field theory, including the many papers published on that theory by
Einstein, simply say that the theory “failed”.Little discussion of the substance of that theory can be found in the
standard accounts, nor are the criteria defining such “failure” specified.It is hard to believe that Einstein’s
“unitary field theory” was entirely a failure; that it contained no
worthwhile insights or partial successes, or that today's myriad and untested "string" theories assimilated all that was of value in Einstein's work on unification.

For this reason, I have decided
to publish, here, the text below, authored by one of our readers, whose
conjectures and speculations might possibly point to an explanation for this wholesale
neglect of Einstein’s most mature work.

For more informationregarding,
the Seldonianinsights
usually featured here, please see --

There were three key movements in the symphony of Albert
Einstein’s life’s work, in a performance the breadth of which, many belief,
might never be equaled:The Special
Theory of Relativity, the General Theory of Relativity, and “Unitary Field
Theory”, also known as “Unified Field Theory”.

In the latter, Einstein sought to reveal the hidden unity of
the two main fields of “force” recognized as such by physics at the time of
Einstein’s work -- the Universal Electromagnetic Field, and/with the Universal
Gravitational, or Gravitic [Asimov], Field”, in somewhat the way that James
Clerk Maxwell had earlier discovered field equations which revealed the
previously hidden unity of Electricity and Magnetism, and the
‘Electro-Magnetic’ nature of light radiations, both those visible and those invisible
to the human senses.

The standard view is that Einstein’s “Unitary Field Theory”
didn’t work.Einstein published systems
of equations attempting to formulate the hidden unity of Gravity and
Electromagnetism.But they “failed”.

I would not be surprised, although I presently do not have
evidence that such is the case, if the Einstein Unitary Field Theory Equations did,
at least partially, “work”, and “work” well enough to imply the possibility of
technological applications -- the possibility of an ‘electro-magneto-gravitic’
technology.

The U. S. government already had its eye on Einstein.A famous, approximate equation, arising in
his first ‘symphonic movement’, the Special Theory of Relativity, implied the
possibility of nuclear weapons, and Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt on that
subject had, at least in part, triggered the gigantic and hyper-consequential
Manhattan Project.J. Edgar Hoover and
the INS were endeavoring to deport Einstein because of Einstein’s “socialist”
views.The illustrious Kurt Gödel,
Einstein’s buddy at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, had discovered
an exact special solution to the system of ten “simultaneous” nonlinear partial differential
equations that formulate, in pre-tensor mathematical language, Einstein’s
General Theory of Relativity -- a solution that described paths through
space-time that could be interpreted as representing a kind of “time
travel”.There is ample evidence that
Gödel complained often that he, too, was under government surveillance, ever
since that discovery, a complaint “officially” dismissed as “paranoia”.It is now known that Gödel’s mail was
intercepted and opened, his phone tapped, and his home invaded by the U.S.
secret police.The same treatment was
afforded to Einstein.

Again, I would not be surprised -- though, again, I
presently have no evidence that such is the case -- if the Government had
therefore, because of its technological, including military, applications,
slapped a “top secret” sticker on all of Einstein’s further work on Unitary
Field Theory, withdrawing that work from further “public science” elaboration
and publication, and if Einstein acquiesced in that sequestration of his
Unitary Field Theory, e.g., to avoid deportation, to keep that work from
falling into Stalinist hands, etc.

It in conceivable, to my mind, that engineering work on the
technological applications of that Unitary Field Theory, and, perhaps, of
improved such theories, continued, in secret, under some kind of clandestine
government project, in some ways akin to the Manhattan Project.

It is also conceivable to me that this further work has led
to ‘electro-magneto-gravitic field machines’, capable of utilizing electromagnetic energy -- e.g.,
electrical currents -- to generate, or “translate” into, gravitational energy, possibly
including into negative
gravitational “forces” -- anti-gravity
“forces”, such as would be felt by bodies of “anti-matter” in a gravitational
field generated by “matter” per the Dirac theory -- that could be harnessed in
the form a propulsion system.It is thus
also possible, in my mind, that the U. S. military has already constructed a
fleet of inter-planetary anti-gravity-propulsion spacecraft, although I
presently know of no evidence that such is, in fact, the case, despite many
claims to that effect from questionable sources.

Recently, a world class physicist, now deceased, has claimed
to have achieved Einstein’s Unitary Field Theory -- and with a bonus that Einstein may never have
anticipated!

The physicists name is Mendel Sachs, and his work has been
all but ignored by the physics community, which may be just the typical treatment
accorded to new scientific theories, or which might possibly reflect a
government gag-order.

In the Preface to his 1982 book General Relativity
and Matter, Sachs writes of his resulting 16 field equations,
incorporating and extending the 10 field equations of Einstein’s General Theory
of Relativity --

“ ... The latter are 16 rather than 10 field relations at
each space-time point....”

“It is shown that this 16-component ... field incorporates
the equivalent of the 10-component field of Einstein’s original ... formulation
and a 6-component field that solves field equations of the form of Maxwell’s
equations for electromagnetism.” ...

“The matter field equations themselves are first order nonlinear differential-integral
equations that approach the form of [linear] quantum mechanics as a linear approximation.Thus, the formal...structure of quantum
mechanics appears in this theory of elementary matter only as a linear (low
energy) approximation for a general formalism that is based on the axioms of
general relativity, rather than the quantum theory.”

[COMMENT.This is the
“bonus” I mentioned above:Einstein
himself had, inadvertently, launched the “Quantum Revolution” in physics, with
his 1905 paper about “the photo-electric effect”, for which Einstein later won
a Nobel Prize, and which formed part of Einstein’s work in that “miraculous
year” in which he also published his Special Theory of Relativity.But Einstein remained at war with the,
still-prevailing, linear, probabilistic, acausal formulation of Quantum
Mechanics for the rest of his life].

“Summing up, the general approach to general relativity
theory that is developed in this monograph, which is strictly in accordance
with Einstein’s views of a unified field theory, leads to a unification of the
force manifestations of matter (thus far in terms of gravitation and
electromagnetism) and its inertial manifestations.Such a unification is derived in this
monograph in terms of a set of self-consistent, inter-dependent field
equations.”[pp. xvii-xviii].

Later books by Mendel Sachs on this theory include Quantum
Mechanics from General Relativity [1986], Relativity in
Our Time [1993], Quantum
Mechanics and Gravity [2004].

Monday, April 29, 2019

In the Grundrisse manuscripts, as well
as elsewhere, Karl Marx wrote about the way in which fixed capital is the ‘epitomeous’
form of capital, coming to dominate capital-mass in the epoch of the ‘“real
domination”’ or “real subsumption” of the labor process by capital, the epoch that
begins with a prevalence of the “relative surplus-value” form of surplus-value
production, and which Seldon also identifies as the “descendence phase” of the
capitalist system.Marx also wrote there
about how fixed capital lawfully tends to develop into “an automaticsystem of machinery”,
as the incarnation and objectification of the very essence of “the capital-relation”
itself in the shape of the physical embodiment of capital as fixed capital.

In the third volume of «Das Kapital»,
Marx wrote of what Seldon calls ‘The Marxian Singularity’, and which others have termed “The Automation Crisis”, in these words
--

“A development of the productive forces
[M.D.:E.g., a penultimate level of growth of industrial productivity via “automation”] which would diminish the absolute number of laborers, i.e.,
enable the entire nation to accomplish its total production in a shorter
time-span would cause a revolution
[and would thus also constitute an
historical boundary, a productive force upper bound and limit, of the capitals-system;
an end of the very possibility of the continuing the capitals-system; of
the capital social-relation-of-production as predominating social relation of
social reproduction -- M.D.] because it would put the bulk of the population
out of the running”.

It might be instructive, as a “thought-experiment”, to note
what happens in the ‘Marxian ratios’ -- the “dimensionless” value proportions
central to the Marxian “law of value”, and to the Marxian theory of the
capitalist system as a whole -- in a scenario characterized by an extremity of
automation. Such a scenario would be
modeled “in the limit” as “Variable capital-value”, V --
the aggregate of the values of wages or of living human labor-power commodities
purchased to form part of “productive capital” -- goes to 0.

A.Let us first apply this limit-process to the
Marxian value-profit-rate ratio -- the ratio that resides at the very heart of
Marx’s theory of the historical dynamics and ‘meta-dynamics’ [Seldon] of “the
capital relation”, and of its lawful fate -- in its “purely”-quantitative,
classical form:

lim.S’.=.0.=0

V-->0

(C + V)C

-- wherein S’ goes to zero together with V,
because no “necessary labor” also means no “surplus-labor”, hence no “surplus-value”,
S,
hence no net “surplus-value”, S’.And
no net “surplus-value” means no profit, hence, before long, no capitalism.

It is also interesting to see what happens in this V --> 0
limit to that form of the Marxian value-profit-rate ratio which arises by multiplying both the denominator and the
numerator of the ratio as given above by 1 in the form of ((1/V)/(1/V))
-- the form in which both the “organic composition of capital” ratio, C/V,
and the (net) “rate of surplus-value” ratio, (S’/V), figure explicitly,
as ‘sub-ratios’ --

lim.(S’/V) .“=”.oo.“=”.oo.

V-->0

((C/V) + 1)(oo+ 1)oo

“=”‘“indeterminate”’.

We might visualize this scenario-idealization, of ‘automation
extremity’, as one in which --

*All agental production work, which
no longer figures as “living [human] labor”, is performed by AI ‘‘‘Android
Robots’’’, whose costs of reproduction do not figure as V, but
might, rather, be assimilated to C, or;

*All such production work, which,
again, no longer figures as “living [human] labor”, is performed by genomically
re-engineered ‘meta-humans’, whose costs of reproduction therefore also no
longer figure as V, or;

*All such production work, which,
again, no longer figures as “living [human] labor”, is performed by ‘hybrid meta-humans’,
that combine genomically re-engineered genotypes with implants/artificial body-parts
[i.e., ‘‘‘prosthetics’’’] originally developed for Android Robots, i.e., by ‘‘‘Cyborgs’’’,
whose costs of reproduction thus also no longer figure as V.

-- or by combinations of the three cases described above.

The above, “infinity over infinity”, “indeterminate”
result arises from the outcome that both the (C/V) ‘sub-ratio’, in the denominator,
and the (S’/V) ‘sub-ratio’,
in the numerator, “become infinite” in the limit as V goes to 0, due
to divisions by zero, in terms of such calculations as are available in
standard, “purely”-quantitative “Real” arithmetic, as augmented by the “limit”
operation and by the non-standard "infinity" symbol ‘oo’
--

lim.C.=. C .“=”oo

V-->0

V0

-- and --

lim.S’.=. S’.“=”oo.

V-->0

V0

B.Let us next apply this limit-process to the
Marxian value-profit-rate in its Seldonian, ‘qualo-quantitative’ or ‘quanto-qualitative”
form, as that form arises through ontological and metrical ‘re-qualification’ of
‘‘‘quantifiers’’’, by ontological and metrical ‘arithmetical qualifier’ factors
or coefficients, in the seventh ‘arithmetic for dialectic’ in the “slow version”
of the Seldonian ‘‘‘systematic-dialectical’’’ method of presentation of the
axioms-systems of the Seldonian ‘arithmetics for dialectic’, as a
dialectical categorial progression of axioms-systems’ categories:[forthcoming].

For more informationregarding,
and for [further] instantiationsof, these Seldonianinsights, please see --

Sunday, April 28, 2019

Marx’s Grundrisse manuscript in
particular is peppered with passages such as the following [emphasesadded],
referring to “the concept of capital” --

“The exact development of theconceptofcapital [is] necessary, since it [is] the
fundamental concept of modern economics, just as capital itself, whose
abstract, reflected image [is] itsconcept
[dessen abstraktes Gegenbild sein Begriff], [is] the foundation of
bourgeois society.The sharp formulation
of the basic presuppositions of the relation must bring out all the contradictions of
bourgeois production, as well as the boundary where it drives beyond itself.” [p. 331].

“... (3) Looked at precisely, that is, the realization process of
capital -- and money becomes capital only through the realization process --
appears at the same time as its devaluation process [Entwertungs-prozess],
its demonetization.And this in two
respects.First, to the extent that
capital does not increase absolute labor-time but rather decreases the
relative, necessary labor time, by increasing the force of production, to that extent does
it reduce the costs of its
own production -- in so far as it was presupposed as a certain
sum of commodities, reduces its exchange value:one part of the
capital on hand is constantly devalued owing to a decrease in the costs of production at
which it can bereproduced;not because of a
decrease in the amount of labor objectified in it, but because of a decease in
the amount of living labor which it is henceforth necessary to objectify in this
specific product.This constant devaluationof theexistingcapital
does not belong here, since it already presupposes capital as completed.It is merely to be noted here in order to
indicate how later developments are already contained in thegeneralconceptofcapital.Belongs in the doctrine of the concentration
and competition of capitals.” [p. 402-403].

“The tendency to create the world market is
directly given in theconceptofcapital
itself.” [p. 408].

“( ... Conceptually, competition is nothing other than the innernature of capital,
its essential character,
appearing in and realized as the reciprocal interaction of many capitals with one another, the inner tendency as external necessity.)Capital exists and can only exist as many capitals, and itsself-determination
therefore appears as theirreciprocal interaction
with one another).” [p. 413-414].

“It belongs to theconceptofcapital that the increased productiveforceoflabor is posited rather as the increase of a force [Kraft]
outside itself, and as labor’s own debilitation
[Entkräftung].The hand toolmakes the worker independent -- posits him
as proprietor.Machinery -- as fixed capital --
posits him as dependent, posits
him as appropriated.This effect of machinery holds only in so far as it is cast
into the role of fixed capital,
and this it is only because the worker relates to it as wage-worker, and
[Ed.:as] the active individual generally, as mere worker.” [p. 702].

Some of these assertions -- particularly those like the
fourth quote above -- may ring with tones reminiscent of Platonian idealism, as
if an “immaterial” «eidos» controls the manifestations of physical and
sensuous phenomena, from “behind”, “within”, and/or “above” them, from some
“transcendental” realm of eternal, immutable, intangible, Parmenidean «eide».

But we hold that Marx’s “concept of capital”
is neither a
Platonian «eidos» nor
a Hegelian-mystical, reified, subject-object inverted «Begriff».

Yes, Marx was
coming to the study of the world-market capitalist system, and to the immanent
critique of the ideology-compromised science of classical political economy, from
the background of his earlier immanent critique of Hegelian/capitalist philosophical
ideology.

But the positive fruition of that immanent critique of
Hegelian/capitalist ideology was what Seldon calls a ‘psychohistorical-materialist
dialectical theory’ of human concepts in general, and of “the concept of
capital” in particular, via a view which dialectically synthesized the
scientifically-serviceable portions of the ideologies of French mechanical
materialism [abstract ‘matter-ism’], and German classical idealism [denial of
objective materiality].

Per that view, a “concept” such as Marx’s “concept of
capital” must be a scientific one, embracing and unifying the totality of the
empirical appearances of its object -- including even the obscure, little-known,
or seldom-experienced of such appearances.Such a Marxian, dialectical “concept” is no arbitrary construct.To be “correct”, it must comprehensively explain,
in a unifying way, all of the known empirical manifestations of the reality
that it conceptualizes. Regarding the case
in point, human beings actively construct, produce, and reproduce the capital
social-relation of societal self-reproduction, even if not with full
consciousness or intent,and they are
beings which have the genomic potentiality to form ideas, potential “concepts”,
e.g., about their own praxis in so constructing, producing, and reproducing. The “correct” concept of capital, at least for
a given historical moment, is that unique conceptualization of the capitalist
experience of humanity that comprehends the totality of that experience.

Such a “concept” can only be arrived at via relentless scientific
criticism of the vast variety of deficient ideas of the global capitals-system
that initially arise, and that continue to arise, some reflecting the “inverted”
experience, and the ‘concrete mystification’, that the capital-praxis entails,
and some reflecting deliberate attempted mystifications by the intellectual
prostitutes and con-men of the capitalist ruling classes.

The formation of this “concept” of Marxian, dialectical “concepts”
may be facilitated by recourse to an example from the “natural” sciences:the example of the “concept” of “gravity”.

Newton’s breakthrough theory of “gravitational force” has
been, and continues to be, enormously serviceable in calculations and
predictions of the gravitational dynamics of massive bodies.

However, there are “appearances” of “gravitational force”
which contradict the Newtonian expectations and calculations.

Such is the “appearance” of the shift of the perihelion of
the planet Mercury in its orbitings of our Sun, that is unexplained by Newton’s
model of gravity.Einstein’s General Relativity
theory of gravity was able to explain almost all of that discrepancy.

Another such is the measurable gravitational bending of the
trajectories of light-rays as they pass in sufficient proximity to
sufficiently-massive objects, such as stars. Again, Einstein’s General Relativity ‘non-force’
theory of the gravitational field predicts accurately such bending. Newton’s theory of gravity-force does not.

However, Einstein’s model of gravity goes into division-by-zero-“singularity”
failure-mode when attempting to explain the appearances/phenomena of the “total
gravitational collapse” of sufficiently massive objects, e.g., of stars. Scientists who cling to General relativity
Theory at this point of its breakdown, start ‘mysticizing’ about physical‘actual infinities’, e.g., of
mass-density and of “infinitesimal”
volume, supposedly existing at the core of such collapsed stars -- “black holes”.

The F.E.D.
hypothesis is that “black holes” contain a thoroughlyfinite form of
mass-energy substance, beyond the “degenerate” matter of “white dwarf” stars,
and beyond even the ‘‘‘neutronium’’’ of “neutron stars”, which we call
‘holonium’.

If the Einstein General Relativity equations are mapped into
the Seldonian seventh, or ‘Mu’, dialectical calculus, and thus ‘re-qualified’ by
arithmetical ontological qualifier ‘meta-numeral’ factors/coefficients,
and also by metrical qualifier ‘meta-numeral’ factors/coefficients, then
their “infinite”
collapse division-by-zero “singularity” yields, instead of any aphysical value of “infinity”, the Mu ‘meta-numerical’
value of ‘full zero’, which
signifies that the -- quitefinite -- outcome of
such “gravitational collapse”, involves an ontological category of “mass-energy”
which cannot be described in the mathematical language of Einstein’s General Relativity
theory, e.g., given the restricted “ontological commitments”, and relatively abstract ‘descriptivity’ of
that language.

Moreover, Einstein’s General Relativity theory fails to jibe
with Quantum Mechanics, which is a huge problem for which both General Relativity
Theory and the ideology of Quantum Mechanics are likely both to blame, even
though the gravitational interactions of quantum mechanical “particles”, due to
their minimal masses, are “negligible” in magnitude.

Thus, still, despite many centuries of effort, it appears
that humanity has yet to arrive at the “concept of gravity” in the Marxian,
scientific, dialectical meaning of the term “concept”, or “category”.

Moreover, we see that the Marxian “concept of
capital” -- even given its unprecedentedly advanced character -- is in need of
improvement, especially in the light of certain phenomena of capitalism that
Marx did not live long enough to experience.

For more informationregarding,
and for [further] instantiationsof, these Seldonianinsights, please see --